1. The AGM approved the creation of "Street Prepared" (SP) classes for 2003, lightweight and heavyweight. The rule, as adopted, bars the use in SP of tires with a tread wear rating lower than 160. As several members have pointed out, most particularly Pascal Gademer (I suggest you read his posts on this issue), some stock tires like the Pirelli PZero that came as original equipment on cars such as the XKR, would be permitted in stock class and modified, but NOT in SP. Obviously, that does not make sense. Some have also suggested that other high performance tires should be allowed on any SP car regardless of class, but just eliminating tires that are truly race tires (tread wear rating lower than 100).

We need to discuss and address this issue NOW for the 2003 season.

Please post your comments on this issue under this topic. Thanks to all.

Steve, congratulations and thanks for picking up the reins on this very important area of potential JCNA club growth. I am the slalom chair for the RMJC meet in June. My preference on Street Prepared class is this: any true DOT street tire is acceptable. Any tire that is factory fitted or provided as a replacement by the factory for a factory fitted tire (Silverstone Jags got a warranty replacement with a revised bead protecting band on the sidewalls to protect the wheels from curb scrapes) is acceptable. 'Fake' DOT tires we use in vintage racing and other race organizations are not allowed in JCNA SP class. For the 16" wheel equipped XKs I would accept any DOT street tire of 60% sidewall and up. I would not accept any tire with a side wall of less than 55% in SP. I'm not in favor of running Avon, Dunlop, Goodyear or Michelin 16" racing tires in SP. I'm sure there is more but this is what is on the top of my head on this subject.
Bob Grossman

This was decided- right or wrong it was voted and approved. The intent as I saw it at the time was to move supercharged cars up in class without saying so. My slalom is in May. We will run the rules as voted and will be forced to challenge if not followed by all for the remainder of the year.

that doesn't make any sense... Supercharged cars ( XJR and XKR ) are already in their own class L... what do you mean by "move supercharged cars up in class without saying so" ?

V8 S-type, non supercharged XK8s are/were delivered with PZeros... are you saying that an S-type/XK8 with a KN Filter would have to compete agaisnt heavily modified car like Gary and Art? The air filter kicks it out of stock... but the PZeros kicks it out of SP...

BTW, shouldn't the committee have addressed the S-Type R and assigned to class L ? seems like yet another mistake/oversight...

Pascal- I am not advocating anything! I just do not believe they made a mistake of this size. They were clear enough at the AGM. So if a mistake was not made it was by design and that is the only reason I can see. What do you think? I wish that proposed rule changes were clear as to reason but the history of JCNA tells us that a lot of times there is a hidden reason shrouded in some language that is pointed at giving some group or persons a benefit. I think that if I were to rewrite the rules I would go by vintage of the car. If they drove it to the track I would be less concerned with the mods than if it came on a trailor.

I disagree with your conclusion that there was an intent on moving "supercharged" cars up in class. By your reasoning, Class L would effectively be rendered meaningless, and all XKR's and XJR's would be required to run in modified class. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Rule 20, which governs the use of tires in stock classes, was not modified at the AGM. It remains as it was last year. A car can use any tire/wheel combination that is appropriate to its class. Thus XKR's and XJR's can continue to run in stock class with whatever tire/wheel combination was available from the factory. If that includes tires that are tread wear rated below 160, they are still legal in stock. You will recall that the mofications to Rule 20 were referred to the Slalom Committee for review.

Unfortunately, in the rush to get this and other proposals handled, we apparently neglected to remove the reference to the 160 tread wear rating from similar language in the new Street Prepared classes proposal before it was adopted. I do recall this coming up, but need to consult with Steve Averill to confirm whether it was amended in this regard or not.

I, for one, had no intention of throwing XKRs and XJRs into modified class simply because they come stock with tires of a lower tread wear rating than other stock cars. If that was someone's hidden agenda, it will not prevail, unless I'm voted down on this issue. I believe we can and should fix this problem, if it exists, before the season starts, and it will be fixed. And if it is, we will expect all clubs, including yours, to comply with the rules as published by the Committee on the website.

I expected a sarcastic response to my post. Glad you didn't disappoint me.

Read the post again, carefully. I said that it will be fixed unless I'm voted down on the issue. I'm going to do what I can to see that it is rectified for this year. If it is not, it won't be because I didn't try.

That said, what is clear is that all unmodified cars including the XJR's and XKR's can run Pirelli PZero, original equipment tires or equivalent replacemtns in STOCK class, even though they have a tread wear rating lower than 160, provided it was offered by Jaguar as original equipment in that class. There is NO DISPUTE on that point. All other STOCK classes must run tires and rims that are appropriate to their class, as stated in the rules. Rule 20, which governs tires in stock class, remains unchanged from last year.

The ONLY issue that is open at this point, as I see it, is whether cars that would otherwise end up in Street Prepared class will automatically be bumped up to Modified class just because they have "stock" (i.e., original equipment) tires with a tread wear rating lower than 160. I do not agree with Pascal that the number should simply be changed to 100 for this year for all cars. Rather, for 2003, I believe that cars for which these tires are original equipment, like the XJR and XKR, should not be deprived of running in Street Prepared because of their tires where those same tires would otherwise be acceptable in Stock classes.

If an XKR has a modified suspension or enlarged exhaust so as not to qualify in their stock class, they should be allowed to run Street Prepared even though they are running a tire that is below the 160 number, since it was original equipment on their car. Does this make sense? Please tell me why we should make these folks either go out an buy another set of tires that are not suitable for their car or force them to run in Modified class. This seems to be logical to me, but if I'm missing something, please elucidate. I'm certainly open to being educated on the subject.

I think I understand the point -- the idea was to keep supercharged cars like these out of street prepared. I can see the concern and this may be an issue to address in the future. But to do it simply because of the tread wear rating of the tires makes no sense whatsoever to me.

And as far as kneeling goes, there is no need for you to genuflect. A little groveling will do just fine. :-)

completly illogic.... the number that the committee threw in the rule was arbitrary. the committee did not research the issue as it should have and presented a flawed proposal at the AGM. It was presented as a mean to eliminate the type of race slicks guys use in modified and we all bought it that way.

I don't know how many E-types, XJS, or X-types are currently running PZeros,Potenza S02 or Contisport Contact but throwing these cars in Modified is plain stupid.

I do agree with you as a long-term proposition. However, I'm not sure that there is a practical way to resolve this for 2003, if the objective is to change the 160 number to 100. Any suggestions on how to accomplish that? My thought was that providing an exception for those cars for which PZero's etc. are stock would at least solve part of the problem right away. If AGM approval is needed for slalom rule changes, how do we get that at this late date? I believe that the exception for cars where those tires are stock would be nothing more than a Committee interpretation and application of the rule, by extension and application of the stock rule.

Any suggestions anyone has on how Pascal's proposal could be acted on and implemented would be greatly appreciated. Remember, the first slaloms on the schedule are May 3 -- the Challenge Championship and JAG in NJ. Any action would need to be taken before then.

then if lowering the number is not possible at this time, at least an amendment allowing Street Prepared cars to use any tire ( Manufacturer / Model / specs ) offered as factory equipement by Jaguar regardless of model and/or year.

sounds reasonable and restores some logic to the rule : if you can run Street Prepared on Contitrack or PZeros with one car, you should be able with others as well.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I was asking HOW it can be done, i.e., what we need to do officially to make it happen. As a practical matter, you latest suggestion is subject to the same approval process, whatever it might be, for any change to the rules at this point.

If someone can tell us what that is, at least we could get the ball rolling.

yes but saying that "allowing Street Prepared cars to use any tire (Manufacturer / Model / specs) offered as factory equipement by Jaguar regardless of model and/or year" it doesn't go directly against what was voted at the AGM. It is an exemption.

The BOD has the power to make such decision, at least looking at the by laws I don't see anything against that. Have your committee vote on it and if approved submit it to the BOD for approval?

RE read your post. That is not what you said. Do not want to make this personal but will if you want. Here is my stand. The BOD and the AGM have voted in the past and this year on things they did not understand. How do we stop it. PAIN. Let it stand for one year and correct it. The problem is that if you negate this vote you in effect negate all AGM votes. "Correcting" this from a national level while probably the right thing to do in this case is the wrong thing to do in general. And as far as sarcastic you might want to turn it down as there are far worse things to be. I also realize that you think my idea of how or why this happened is incorrect but have not seen your thoughts. You know as well as I do this was not a mistake.

I certainly have no reason to make this personal, and I don't want to. You are an important part of this organization, and I very much respect your opinions and knowledge. I hope you will continue to share your experience with us and be a positive contributor. This job will be unmanageable and will only lead to more problems in the future without the able assistance and input from people like you.

You do make a good point, and one that may actually prevail here. Although I've made some inquiries, it appears that under the governing procedures for adoption of rules, nothing short of AGM approval will do. Any changes to the rules must be voted on at an AGM. Whoever had it on their agenda to eliminate high performance tires and cars succeeded, at least in the Street Prepared class. Although the proposal to change Rule 20, which would have impacted stock classes as well was deferred, it appears to have gotten by us with SP. I'm still trying to check with Steve Averill to see what the minutes reflect on that point.

Assuming that the minutes do not show that the "160" reference in the Street Prepared rules was tabled along with Rule 20, it appears to me at this point that we are stuck with the 160 rule in SP class for 2003. Sorry gang, especially you, Pascal. But that will teach us all not to take things for granted and to consider changes that are proposed more carefully. We were all collectively at fault for letting this one get by us at the AGM.

I do hope, George, that you will lend a hand in reviewing and revising the slalom rules for presentation to the 2004 AGM. Please read Warren Hansen's post about the original rule on tires as it appeared in the 1996 rules. Your comments, thoughts and suggestions on this topic and other aspects of the rules will be greatly appreciated and will help us resolve these issues once and for all.

I will be glad to help anyway I can. My point was that we are stuck with this for a year. To change it someway now would be in direct opposition to the point the message the BOD was sent. I hope a positive outcome will be more informed deligates. I would also hope that in the future all proposals are flushed out so that there are no hidded agendias. It is time for that stuff to die. George Camp

I was under the impression that the 160 number was taken arbitrarily with no research done whatsoever... maybe by throwing a dart on a board... at least that's the impression I got from Art murky explanation in another thread.

Am I naive? what agenda are you talking about? all I see is pure incompetence...

At this point, whether this was done deliberately or by accident, it appears we are stuck with it for 2003. Frankly, I'm glad that we now have a Street Prepared class available for this season, even if there are some potential problems. It will allow those cars with relatively minor modifications to compete without having to go up against the super-cars.

Hopefully, with a little thought, work and cooperation, we can get this all sorted out by the next AGM. I look forward to working with everyone who is interested to get the job done.